July 12, 2009

I think the reason Brooks put up with the senatorial hand for so long is that he had decided to see if he could get the goods on the Senator. He was waiting for more, something distinct and reportable. A whispered proposition, perhaps. What a scoop it would be if that hand would scoop his scrotal sac! But this impromptu sting required Brooks to give zero encouragement, and the Senator was (presumably) waiting for a signal. Brooks also failed to nudge the amorous gentleman aside, in the obvious, ordinary way, and therefore, insanely, the 2 men spent the dinner in the silly hand-on-inner-thigh position. What rich comedy!

So Brooks didn't get his scoop, but he did flutter back to his NYT perch and peck out a column about dignity that a lot of Times readers seemed to love. (It topped the "most emailed" list for a while.) He expatiated about the good old days when men like George Washington displayed their thighs in tight silk knickers... I mean displayed high standards of dignity. But there is still hope, he tells us:

[I]t’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.

71 comments:

I can't recall ever accidently touching a guy's inner thigh, let alone having my hand sit there for a whole dinner. How does this happen? Nor could I imagine another guy letting that happen. It is strange.

Unless of course they are both gay...or as you suggest Ann, one of them is and one of them is just waiting to see if things will get gayer, so he can get a story. I bet Maureen Dowd told David this strategy would work.

Ann,You're too stupid to know it, but you only discredit yourself by insisting that photograph of Obama shows what you pretend it shows. Anyone with a brain knows you know it does not show Obama gazing at the woman's ass. The obvious and logical conclusion is consistent with your past behavior: You're lying in an attempt to get a rise out of your political opponents.

Except for your band of followers, the world is laughing at you, and your posts on this subject remind everyone that you're not honest and will say whatever it takes to get a reaction.

The main fact about the fact of Obama is his determination to punish whitey; a fact that the-soft-and-comfortable-and-determined-to-stay-that-way Brooks would never touch upon with a thousand foot pole.

Even if one were to grant that Obama did, in fact, sneak a peek at the girl's ass (a claim that cannot be proven by the photograph or video, as Ann knows), the video still completely debunks Ann's ridiculous "analysis," in which Obama's entire posture is a reaction to the beautiful girl. Clearly, this is not the case. And clearly, by insisting that it is, Ann discredits herself.

Yes, I've always found marxism to be much more palatable when it is enacted by people with dignity. I think all those people in the gulags were of a like mind that if only Stalin had been a bit more reticent and dignified, boy would they be having a ball.

I assume (so to speak) that most men would gaze at the attributes of an attractive woman, given the opportunity. In fact, it takes a distinct effort to refrain, as those who take office sexual harassment policies seriously can attest. Why in the world is it so desperately necessary to rebut (so to speak) this? Obama is a man, ergo....

Love how the progressive truth squad is just hanging around waiting to leap on any statement critical of The One.

Chauncey (or rather his handlers) sure know how to manage the image battlespace. Leap on any statement that might show Chauncey in a less than flattering light, lest public perception start to move against him.

Imagine making love to a new and intriguing woman. While in the throws of some odd position you notice that one of the drawers in her room is labeled "Testicles". Would you ask? Would you stay? Would you let her make breakfast.

Thanks to this blog, I can live dangerously in safety enjoying a deranged female.

Maybe for the Democrats. Or was GWB involved in a set of sex scandals that I totally missed?

And if you accept the conviction of some on the left that GWB is an alcoholic and a cokehead, the fact that in 8 years none of the people who hate him so desperately were ever able to get a video or photograph of him visibly drunk or high must mean that he has the whole self-mastery thing totally mastered.

Obama is always getting in trouble for how he looks at things. There is his look of scorn and now his "ass checking" look. I wonder what other ways of looking at things Obama and his family will come up with. Will drool be involved?

In order to catch two photos in such a short period of time, the cameramen must see this sort of thing constantly. But what I'm wondering is, now that we know Michelle Obama is in that kind of marriage, should we feel more or less sympathetic towards her? Is she putting on a brave face towards her husband's wandering eye or is she the constant nag who is driving her husband elsewhere?

There is nothing wrong with a brief and discreet gaze at a well-turned ass.

What is amusing is how dedicated the Obama fan-boys are to claiming the picture is somehow a lie. If you want to believe that, I'm sure you'll find validation in the video. If like me, you don't care, you see from the video that his gaze was short and reasonably discreet.

He was elected to the office of President with almost no useful experience of any kind. It's no surprise he disgraces himself, his family, and our country at every turn. But he is learning, and I'm sure he will improve with time. What sort of person he becomes, and if we like him when he gets there, we will have to wait and see. Right now Obama is the Democrat's Sarah Palin, and I can wish you all good luck with him.

If they have an "email this article" link they do. I see many publications keeping track of stories this way.

No, that button keeps track of how many people use that button. I email articles on a regular basis and never use that button. I don't understand why anyone would use it. The NYT has no way of knowing when I send a NYT URL to someone.

No, that button keeps track of how many people use that button. I email articles on a regular basis and never use that button. I don't understand why anyone would use it. The NYT has no way of knowing when I send a NYT URL to someone.

Yes, the NYT gives a false picture of what it knows about how popular its pieces are. The NYT perceives its internal emailing system as the be-all-and-end-all of popularity. But they're only detecting the behavior of the tiny group of people who are more comfortable with the NYT's convoluted messaging system than with the more straightforward practice of sending a URL. There are all sorts of ways this could be demographically skewed; it probably leaves out more young (maybe liberal) readers. I actually think that's important. Maybe not as important as the very serious matter of what Brooks was talking about in his comments about his thigh, so I don't know if it's worthy of an update in the post, but I think it's worth pointing out in the comments section.

I think you mean "how many people use that button to email articles," which is probably where the NYT comes up with the rankings. Even if it doesn't capture everyone, it would still give them a statistical sample.

I email articles on a regular basis

Your correspondents must be very pleased.

and never use that button.

Now you're just being difficult. The NYT gives you free articles to send to people and you won't even bother to tell them when you do!

I don't understand why anyone would use it.

Yes, I see your point. No one in their right mind would use an "email this article" link to email an article. Perhaps people in insane asylums like clicking on the links for fun?

The NYT has no way of knowing when I send a NYT URL to someone.

And yet they still publish a list of most emailed articles. Perhaps they do have access; a secret part of the Patriot Act?

Your "analysis" only works if you assume that users behaved significantly differently with regard to the Obama article than it did with every other article that the NYT published.

Even if you assume that only 10% (or pick a percentage that suits you better) of users utilize the "E-mail" link provided, then you would have to be able to show that this percentage on this one article was significantly different than the percentages for other articles.

You're making a leap of faith which has absolutely zero basis in logic in order to try to make a case which also has zero basis in logic. The picture was headlined on the front page of Drudge for at least 2, possibly 3, days. Were any other NYT articles similarly featured so prominently? Drudge reported that he got more than 600 million page views in the previous month, but somehow you're asking people to believe that such a prominantly featured article on one of the most highly trafficked news sites in the world somehow didn't receive more attention than others that weren't?

JAC's observations are quite good. Note that you must be "signed in" at the NYT site to use their e-mail button. (The Brooks article is available for reading without signing in)

I never read a NYT article that requires signing in. And I suspect that the demographics of the "Sign-Ins" versus the unwashed peasants like me are quite different. And I think a survey of how many people use the "e-mail this" buttons on any site versus pasting a link would be very interesting. I don't recall ever receiving any except from some real rookies.

Regarding the "email this article" button, the reason not to use it is that you give them two email addresses, yours and the recipient's. The flood of email solicitations I get when an well-meaning sender uses the button is VERY annoying, and I would never subject anyone I like to the same annoyance.

We have caught our Professor trying to humanize Pres. Obama's Too Cool and Too Dedicated to Power persona by alleging he notices a hot woman dressed for men's pleasure. The awful truth is that Obama is immune to such a normal attractions. He is 100% into his own power to seduce nations, and no normal female beauty is of any use in distracting him from this mission.